s  JUL    2    1968 

3X^14-8 

.C8TT 


Aft 

APPEAL    TO    THE    PUBLIC, 

IN  BEHALF  OF  THE 

ffliroloatrni  Knstitutr  of  CCouucrtfcttt. 


The  Trustees  of  the  Theological  Institute  of  Connecticut,  would  invite 
the  attention  of  the  public  to  some  considerations,  suggested  bv  a  state- 
ment of  the  Theological  Professors  of  Yale  College,  recently  published, 
and  extensively  circulated. 

We  should  deem  it  altogether  improper,  in  our  official  capacity,  to  take 
notice  of  this  document,  were  it  not  necessary  for  the  vindication  of  our- 
selves, and  of  the  founders  and  supporters  of  the  seminary  under  our  care. 
But  finding  ourselves  implicitly  charged  with  being  engaged  in  an  enter- 
prise for  which  no  justifiable  reason  can  be  assigned,  we  feel  ourselves 
called  upon  to  make  a  frank  exposition  of  our  views,  and  motives,  to  the 
Christian  public. 

The  Professors  say  :  "  It  is  well  known  to  the  public,  that  a  second 
Theological  seminary  has  been  organized  in  this  State.  To  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  an  institution,  as  a  means  simply  of  increasing  the  facili- 
ties for  theological  instruction,  we  should  be  the  last  to  object ;  but  this 
institution,  it  is  well  known,  was  established  avowedly  on  the  ground, 
that  the  department  under  our  care,  has  become  the  seat  of  dangerous 
error.  Against  such  an  assumption,  we  feel  ourselves  bound  most  sol- 
emnly to  protest."  They  say  also  :  "  On  the  ground  of  our  entire  con- 
formity to  their  own  standard  of  orthodoxy,  the  friends  of  the  Theological 
Institute,  arc  forever  precluded  from  saying,  or  insinuating,  that  a  new 
institution  was  called  for  to  oppose  any  errors  of  ours." 

The  impression  which  these  statements  are  evidently  intended  to  make 
on  the  public  mind,  is,  that  the  founders  and  friends  of  the  Theological 
Institute,  are  laboring  under  an  entire  delusion,  in  supposing  that  there 
exists  any  important  difference  of  theological  views  among  the  Congre- 
gational ministers  of  Connecticut ;  and  that  under  the  influence  of  this 
delusion,  they  have  gone  forward  to  establish  a  seminary  which  is  not 
called  for,  and  which  ought  not  to  be  patronized  by  the  Christian  public. 
They  assume  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  the  new  institution  is  intended  to  be 
arrayed  in  opposition  to  the  one  with  which  they  are  connected  ;  and  that 
the  sole  object  for  which  it  was  founded,  is,  to  oppose  certain  errors  which 
exist  only  in  the  imagination  of  its  friends  and  supporters.  Whether 
these  representations  are  well  founded,  the  public  will  judge,  when  they 
have  carefully  attended  to  what  we  have  to  say  in  our  own  defence. 

We  do  n<>t  deaf,  that  there  exists  serious  dissatisfaction  in  relation  to 
the  Theological  School  at  New-Haven  ;  and  that  this  is  among  the  rea- 
sons which  have  given  rise  to  the  new  Institution.  The  grounds  of  this 
dissatisfaction,  we  now  feel  ourselves  called  upon  frankly  to 

1.  Many  have  been  dissatisfied,  that  the  Theological  School  at  New- 
Haven,  has  no  more  connexion  with  the  ministers  and  churches  of  the 
State.  Being  an  appendage  of  the  College,  it  is  under  the  entire  control 
of  the  Corporation  ;  a  Board  which,  as  at  present  constituted,  is  deemed 
altogether  unsuitable  to  be  the  guardians  of  a  Theological  Seminary.  It 
i  known]  that  of  the  eighteen  members  who  compose  this  Board, 
(exclusive  of  the  President,)  eight  are  ex-officio  members, — the  ( Governor, 
Lieutenant  Governor,  and  six  Senators.     These  are  annually  chosen  by 

1 


(he  people  at  large,  and  are,  of  course,  such  men  as  happen  to  be  elected 
to  these  offices.  They  may,  and  often  do,  belong  to  different  religious- 
denominations.  There  is  no  certainty  that  they  will  not  be,  occasionally 
at  least,  men  whose  influence,  (great  as  it  must  be  from  the  stations  which 
they  occupy.)  will  be  exerted  in  opposition  to  evangelical  religion  ;*  yet 
they  have  a  right,  equally  with  the  other  members  of  the  Board,  to  act, 
and  vote,  in  the  election  and  removal  of  the  Theological  Professors,  in 
directing  the  course  of  studies,  and  in  regulating  all  the  internal  concerns 
of  the  Institution.  That  a  school,  intended  for  the  theological  education 
of  Congregational  ministers,  should  be  under  the  entire  control  of  a  Board 
thus  constituted,  has  appeared  to  many  altogether  improper  ;  and  they 
have  looked  forward  with  no  small  degree  of  solicitude  to  the  probable 
results  of  such  an  arrangement. 

2.  Another  ground  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  New-Haven  school,  as 
at  present  organized,  is  the  want  of  sufficient  security  against  the  intro- 
duction of  heresy.  In  regard  to  three  of  the  Theological  Professors,-!-  it 
is  not  known  that  they  are  required  to  give  their  assent  to  any  Confession 
of  Faith,  or  that  the  Corporation  are  required,  or  even  authorised,  to  re- 
move them  from  office,  for  any  heretical  opinions  whatever.^:  In  regard 
to  the  Professorship  of  Didactic  Theology,  the  founders  do  indeed  make 
the  following  requisition  :  "  Every  Professor  who  shall  receive  the  income 
or  revenue  of  this  fund,  shall  be  examined  as  to  his  faith,  and  be  required 
to  make  a  written  declaration  thereof,  agreeably  to  the  following :  / 
hereby  declare  my  free  assent  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  agreed  upon  by  the  churches  of  the  State,  in  the  year  1708,"  i.  e., 
the  Saybrook  Platform.  "  If,  at  any  future  period,  any  person  who  fills 
the  chair  of  this  Professorship,  holds  or  teaches  doctrines  contrary  to  those 
above  referred  to,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Corporation  of  the  Col- 
lege to  dismiss  such  person  from  office,  forthwith."  Yet  the  Professors 
say  in  their  statement,  that  "  a  subscription  to  Confessions  of  Faith,"  is  to 
be  considered  "  as  made  for  substance  of  doctrine  therein  contained, 
without  binding  the  conscience  to  every  expression  used."  They  say 
also,  that  the  present  incumbent,  while  Professor  elect,  "had  certain 
knowledge,  from  personal  intercourse  with  the  founders,  that  if  he  had 
embraced  every  minute  doctrine  of  the  Confession,  it  would  have  been 
considered  a  decisive  disqualification  for  the  office." 

In  view  of  these  statements,  the  question  naturally  arises,  On  what  is 
this  Professorship  founded,  and  for  what  cause  are  the  Corporation  required 
to  dismiss  the  Professor  from  office  ?  The  founders,  so  far  as  appears 
from  their  statutes,  require  an  unqualified  assent  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith  contained  in  the  Platform,  and  make  it  the  duty  of  the  Corporation 
to  dismiss  the  Professor  from  office,  if  he  holds  or  teaches  doctrines  con- 
trary to  those  contained  in  this  Confession.     Yet  it  is    admitted,  that 

*  We  shall  not  be  understood  to  have  any  reference  to  the  present  members  of 
the  Corporation.  We  speak  only  of  what  may  be.  Nor  do  we  complain  of  the 
manner  in  which  this  Board  is  constituted,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Academical 
Department  merely  ;  but  only  in  reference  to  the  Theological  School.  The  principle 
for  which  we  contend,  is,  that  a  Theological  Seminary  ought  to  be  under  the  control 
of  a  distinct  Board  of  Trustees,  composed  of  ministers  and  members  of  churches, 
who  are  amenable  to  some,  ecclesiastical  body.  The  Trustees  of  the  Theological 
Institute,  are  appointed  by  the  Pastoral  Union,  and  are  amenable  to  them.  There  is, 
of  course,  a  connexion  between  the  Seminary  and  the  ministers  and  churches,  which 
would  not  exist,  were  it  under  the  control  of  an  independant  and  irresponsible  Board. 

t  The  Professors  of  Divinity,  of  Biblical  Literature,  and  of  Rhetoric. 

t  Some  of  the  Professors  in  this  department  may  have  given  their  assent  to  the 
Saybrook  Platform,  at  the  time  when  they  were  inducted  into  office  ;  but  since  that 
time,  the  test  law  of  the  College  has  been  repealed,  and,  so  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  learn,  no  exception  was  made  in  regard  to  the  Theological  Professors. 


the  present  Professor,  does  hold  and  teach  doctrines  contrary  to  those 
above  referred  to.  But  it  is  contended,  that  he  is  not  liable,  on  this 
account,  to  impeachment,  because  he  had  "certain  knowledge,  from 
personal  intercourse  with  the  founders,"  that  it  is  their  will  that  lie  should 
hold  and  teach  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Confession  to  which  they  have 
required  him  to  "  declare  his  free  assent,"  in  the  most  unqualified  terms. 
What,  then,  is  the  creed  by  which  this  Professor  is  bound  ?  In  case  of 
impeachment,  by  what  standard  is  he  to  be  tried  ?  By  the  creed  which 
the  present  Professor  submitted  to  the  Corporation  ?  But  this  is  not  men- 
tioned by  the  founders  ;  and  if  it  had  been,  in  what  sense  is  it  to  be  taken  ? 
In  the  literal  and  unqualified  sense,  or  only  "for  substance  of  doctrine  ?" 
Is  the  Saybrook  Platform,  "  for  substance  of  doctrine,"  to  be  considered 
as  the  standard  ?  Neither  is  this  mentioned  by  the  founders.  And  if  we 
may  suppose  it  to  have  been  so  understood,  how  is  it  to  be  ascertained 
what  is  implied  in  a  subscription  to  a  creed  "  for  substance  of  doctrine  ?" 
How  much  may  be  rejected,  and  still  the  substance  be  retained  ?  Who 
shall  draw  the  line,  and  where  shall  the  line  be  drawn  ?  Here,  as  it 
appears  to  us,  is  room  for  endless  debate  ;  and  if  the  principles  laid  down 
by  the  Professors,  be  admitted,  we  see  not  how  a  charge  of  heterodoxy 
could  ever  be  sustained  against  any  person  filling  the  chair  of  this  Pro- 
fessorship.  Nor  do  we  see,  on  these  principles,  that  the  requisitions  of  the 
founders,  afford  any  security  against  the  introduction  of  dangerous  and 
even  fatal  error. 

The  foregoing  considerations  would  have  great  weight  in  our  minds,  if 
we  were  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  doctrines  at  present  taught  in  the 
New-Haven  school ;  but, 

3.  The  theological  views  maintained  by  the  Professors,  have  given 
great  and  extensive  dissatisfaction.  This  dissatisfaction  has  not  been 
produced  by  vague  rumors,  as  to  what  the  Professors  are  supposed  to 
believe  and  teach,  but  by  a  perusal  of  their  own  published  statements, — 
statements  which  seem  to  us  to  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  creeds  to 
which  they  still  acknowledge  their  assent ;  and  which  make  it  evident 
to  our  minds,  that  while  they  adopt  the  language  of  these  creeds,  they 
must  affix  to  that  language  a  meaning  altogether  different  from  that  in 
which  it  has  been  commonly  received.  It  is  well  known,  that  different 
individuals  may  attach  a  very  different  meaning  to  the  same  forms  of 
expression.  The  proposition  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  assented  to,  both 
by  the  Calvinist  and  the  Socinian ;  but  how  widely  different  is  the  con- 
struction which  they  put  upon  this  language,  and  how  utterly  at  variance 
are  their  views  of  the  character  of  the  Saviour  !  An  expressed  assent  to 
the  same  general  propositions,  by  different  individuals,  is  no  evidence  of 
harmony  of  views,  when  their  own  explanations  of  these  propositions,  are 
irreconcilably  at  variance.  Now  it  does  appear  to  us,  that  in  the  ex- 
planations which  the  Professors  have  given  of  some  of  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  they  have  adopted  principles,  which  lead,  by  legiti- 
mate consequence,  to  the  utter  subversion  of  those  doctrines.  This,  we 
think,  has  been  conclusively  shown,  in  publications  which  have  appeared 
within  the  last  five  or  six  years.  To  those  who  have  carefully  perused 
these  publications,  it  cannot  be  necessary,  that  we  should  add  any  thing  in 
proof  of  the  above  position.  For  the  benefit  of  others,  it  may  be  ne- 
cessary to  advert  briefly  to  a  few  examples. 

In  the  first  place,  The  Professors  have  advanced  positions,  which  seem 
to  us  to  subvert  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees.  They  maintain  that 
"God  prefers,  all  things  considered,  holiness  to  sin,  in  all  instances  in 
which  the  latter  takes  place  ;"  and  that  sin  is  suffered  to  exist,  because 
God  could  not  entirely  prevent  its  existence  in  a  moral  system .     They 


insist,  that  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  goodness  of  God,  to  suppose, 
that  "  he  preferred,  decreed,  and  made  a  universe,  comprising  sin  and 
its  everlasting  miseries,"  when  he  "could,  if  he  would,  have  made  a 
universe  of  perfectly  holy  and  happy  beings."  Were  we  to  adopt  these 
principles,  we  should  feel  ourselves  compelled  to  renounce  the  doctrine  of 
decrees,  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  matter  of  fact,  that  God 
has  "  made  a  universe,  comprising  sin  and  its  everlasting  miseries;"  and 
the  Scriptures  assert,  "  As  for  God,  his  way  is  perfect.  Who  can  stay 
his  hand  ?  Whatsoever  the  Lord  pleased,  that  did  he,  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,  in  the  seas  and  in  all  deep  places."  How  can  this  be  true,  if  the 
present  universe  is  not  such,  as  God,  on  the  whole,  prefers ;  and  if  he 
would  have  made  a  different  universe,  had  it  been  in  his  power  1  Who 
ever  heard,  that  any  being  ever  purposed,  or  chose,  that  a  thing  should 
exist,  when  he  preferred,  all  things  considered,  that  something  else  should 
exist  in  its  stead  ?  How  is  it  possible  for  God  to  prefer,  cm  any  account, 
the  existence  of  sin  in  any  instance,  if,  all  things  considered,  that  is,  on 
all  accounts,  he  prefers  something  else  in  its  stead,  in  all  instances  ?  Until 
this  question  can  be  satisfactorily  answered,  the  views  of  the  Professors, 
must  be  regarded  as  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  Calvinistic  creed. 

Again  :  The  principles  adopted  by  the  Professors,  seem  to  us  to  subvert 
the  doctrines  of  special  grace,  and  of  particular  election.  If  it  be  true, 
that  "  God,  all  things  considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin,  in  all  instances 
in  which  the  latter  takes  place,"  then  it  must  be  his  choice,  all  things 
considered,  that  all  men  should  become  holy  and  be  saved  ;  and  his  infinite 
benevolence  will  prompt  him  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  bring  all  men  to  re- 
pentance. What  then  becomes  of  the  doctrines  of  special  grace,  and  of 
particular  election  ?  Who  makeih  thee  to  differ  ?  Not  God,  surely  ;  for  if 
he  prefers,  all  things  considered,  holiness  to  sin  in  every  instance,  he  will 
do  all  in  his  power  to  prevent  sin,  and  secure  holiness  in  its  stead,  in 
every  instance.  To  say  that  God  chooses  not  to  secure  that  which  he, 
on  the  whole,  prefers,  and  which  he  is  able  to  secure,  is  a  manifest 
contradiction. 

Again  :  The  Professors  maintain,  that  "  mankind  come  into  the  world 
with  the  same  nature,  in  kind,  as  that  with  which  Adam  was  created  ;" 
and  that  "the  only  reason  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  do  not  exhibit  the 
same  moral  character  which  Adam  exhibited,  is  not  that  they  have  a 
different  nature,  but  that  they  are  placed  in  different  circumstances." 
These  positions  appear  to  us,  to  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  Calvinistic 
views  of  the  original  character  of  man,  and  of  the  consequences  of 
the  apostacy.  Were  we  to  adopt  these  principles,  we  could  not 
believe,  that  man  was  originally  created  holy,  or  that  there  is  any 
real  connexion  between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  that  of  his  posterity  ; 
nor  could  we  believe,  that  infants  are,  in  any  sense,  sinners,  and  need  to 
be  born  again,  or  to  be  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  If  admitted  to 
heaven,  they  must,  according  to  these  principles,  for  aught  that  we  can 
see,  be  accepted  on  the  ground  of  their  own  righteousness,  and  without 
regeneration,  contrary  to  the  express  declarations  of  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tie.     John  iii.  3  ;   Rom.  iii.  20. 

Again  :  The  Professors  maintain  ;  that  self-love,  or  the  desire  of  happi- 
ness, is  the  grand  principle  by  which  all  moral  beings,  whether  sinful  or 
holy,  are  actuated.  They  say,  "Of  all  specific,  voluntary  action,  the 
happiness  of  the  agent,  in  some  form,  is  the  ultimate  end."  Were  we  to 
adopt  this  principle,  we  should  feel  ourselves  compelled  to  give  up  the 
doctrine  of  disinterested  love,  and  to  deny  all  radical  distinction  between 
holiness  and  sin.  According  to  this  theory,  the  distinction  of  moral  char- 
acter which  exists  among  men,  does  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  they 


have  different  ultimate  ends,  but  from  the  fact  that  they  employ  different 
means  to  obtain  the  same  ultimate  end.  The  reason  that  one  is  holy,  and 
another  sinful  is,  the  one  seeks  his  own  happiness,  by  choosing  God  as  his 
portion,  or  chief  good;  the  other  seeks  Ms  own  happiness,  by  choosing  the 
world  as  his  portion,  or  chief  good.  Both  have  a  supreme  regard  to 
their  own  happiness.  Consequently,  holiness  and  sin  are  to  be  traced  to 
the  same  principle  of  action.  We  cannot  but  say,  what  we  honestly 
believe,  that  the  religion  which  is  in  accordance  with  this  theory,  is  a 
selfish,  and,  of  course,  a  spurious  religion. 

Again  :  The  Professors  maintain,  that  antecedent  to  regeneration,  the 
selfish  principle  is  suspended  in  the  sinner's  heart ;  and  that,  prompted  by 
self-love,  he  uses  the  means  of  regeneration,  with  motives  which  are  nei- 
ther sinful  nor  holy. 

This  theory,  seems  to  us,  to  subvert  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  by  the 
special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  for  it  supposes  every  thing  which 
renders  that  agency  necessary,  to  be  removed,  antecedent  to  a  change  of 
heart.  How  can  it  be  necessary,  that  God  should  interpose,  by  the 
almighty  energy  of  his  Spirit,  to  effect  the  conversion  of  a  sinner,  after 
his  selfishness  is  suspended,  and  his  opposition  to  the  motives  of  the  gospel, 
has  ceased  ? 

This  theory,  also  seems  to  us,  to  involve  the  doctrine  of  progressive 
regeneration, — a  doctrine  utterly  at  variance  with  the  Calvinistic  system. 
Again  :  The  Professors  have  advanced  principles  which  seem  to  us  to 
subvert  the  doctrine  of  the  Saints'  Perseverance.  They  say,  "  Free, 
moral  agents  can  do  wrong  under  all  possible  preventing  influence. 
Using  their  powers  as  they  may  use  them,  they  will  sin  ;  and  no  one 
can  show  that  some  such  agents  will  not  use  their  powers  as  they  may 
use  them.  This  possibility  that  free  agents  will  sin,  remains,  (suppose 
what  else  you  will,)  so  long  as  moral  agency  remains,  and  how  can  it  be 
proved  that  a  thing  will  not  be,  when  for  aught  that  appears,  it 
may  be?  When,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  and  evidence  in  the  c; - 
remains  true  that  it  may  be,  what  evidence  or  proof  can  exist  that  it 
will  not  be  ?" 

According  to  the  principles  here  laid  down,  what  evidence  or  proof  can 
exist,  that  God  will  be  able  to  prevent  the  total  and  final  apostacy  of 
every  saint  and  every  angel?  Saints  and  angels  are  free  moval  . 
and,  according  to  the  principles  here  laid  down,  the  possibility  that  they  will 
apostatize  remains,  (suppose  what  else  you  will.)  "and  how  can  it  be  proved 
that  a  thing  will  not  be,  when,  for  aught  that  ap  .MAY  be  ? 

When  in  view  of  all  the  facts  and  evidence  in  the  case,  it  remains  true 
that  saints  may  apostatize,  what  evidence  <>n  proof  can  exist  that 
thev  will  not  apostatize  ?"* 

We  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  we  do  no  charge  the  Pro- 
fessors, with  admitting  the  consequences  which  we  have  deduced  from 
their  principles;  but  we  cannot  CO  iceal  our  solemn  conviction,  that  the 

*  The  publications  in  which  the  principles  above  referred  to,  and  others  equally 
objectionable,  may  be  found,  are  a  Concio  ad  Clerum,  preached  in  the  chapel  of 
College,  Sept.  10,1828;  Review  of  Dr.  Spring   on  the  Means  oi  Ri 
Christ.  Spect.  for  March,  June,  September,  and  December,  1829;  Review  of  Dr. 

Tyler's  Strictures,  Christ.  Spect.  for  March,  L830;    Review  of  Dr.  \\ I'a  L 

Christ.  Spect.  for  Sept  1830  ;  Letter  to  Dr.  Hfawea,  Christ.  Spect.  for  March,  1832  ; 
Reply  to  Dr.  Tyler  in  the  Spirit  of  th<'  Pilgrims,  Vols.  V.  and  VI.:  R  .  ■  •  of  Dr. 
Tyler's  Remaiks,  Christ.  Spect.  for  Sept.  1832  ;  Letter  to  the  E  litor,  Christ.  Spect. 
for  Sept.  1833.  Of  ihese  publications,  Dr.  Taylor  is  either  the  avowed  or  reputed 
author.  Review  of  Taylor  and  Harvey,  Christ.  Spect.  for  June  18:2'.),  supposed  to 
be  written  principally  by  Prof.  Goodrich  ;  Review  of  Dr.  Fiske  on  IV  lestination, 
Christ.  Spect.  for  Dec.  1831 ;  and  a  Treatise  on  the  Divine  Permission  of  Sin,  Christ. 
Spect.  for  Dec.  1832,  from  the  pen  of  Prof.  Fitch. 


principles,  which  they  have  advanced,  do  necessarily  lead  to  these  con- 
sequences ;  and  that  were  we  to  adopt  them,  we  should  feel  ourselves 
compelled  to  renounce  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  Calvinistic 
creed.  Nor  are  we  alone  in  this  conviction.  It  is  a  conviction,  which 
exists  extensively  in  the  Christian  Community ;  and  in  the  minds  of  a 
large  portion  of  the  most  distinguished  divines  in  the  country.  We  might 
add,  also,  to  some  extent  in  Great  Britain.* 

4.  Another  ground  of  dissatisfaction,  is,  the  great  importance  which 
the  Professors  have  attached  to  their  peculiar  views,  and  the  charges  of 
dangerous  error,  which  they  have  brought  against  their  brethren.  They 
have  charged  their  brethren,  (whose  views  have  been  shown  to  harmon- 
ize with  those  of  the  standard  orthodox  writers  of  New  England,)  with 
having  advanced  theories  which  lead  to.  the  most  shocking  and  blasphe- 
mous errors — theories,  which  involve  the  positions,  that '  sin  is  a  good  thing' : 
"  good  in  itself" — "  the  only  real  good  to  man" — that  "  when  men  sin,  they 
do  the  very  best  thing  they  can  do" — that  "  God  is  the  responsible  au- 
thor of  sin" — that  "the  terms  of  salvation,  and  the  exhibition  of  motives 
to  comply  with  them,  are  a  delusive  mockery" — that  "  God  is  a  criminal 
tempter"  that  "  in  no  respect  is  Satan  more  truly  criminal  as  a  tempter 
than  God  is" — that  we  ought  to  praise  God  for  all  the  sin  which  we  and 
others  have  ever  committed" — that  "  to  sin  and  be  damned  to  all  eternity, 
is  the  result,  and  the  sole  result,  in  respect  to  the  greater  part  of  man- 
kind, designed,  preferred  and  purposed  by  their  Maker" — that  "  the  worst 
kind  of  moral  action  is  the  best" — and  that  "  mankind  are  bound  to  believe 
that  they  shall  please  and  glorify  God  more  by  sin,  than  by  obedience, 
and  therefore  to  act  accordingly."  They  have  also  alleged,  that  nothing 
but  the  inconsistency  of  their  brethren,  saves  them  from  being  "  the  ve- 
ry worst  of  heretics  ;  and  that  their  theories  "  if  carried  out  into  their 
legitimate  consequences,  lead  to  universalism,  to  infidelity,  and  to 

ATHEISM. "f 

We  do  not  complain  of  the  Professors,  for  bringing  these  charges,  if 
they  sincerely  believe  there  is  a  foundation  for  them  ;  but  we  do  utterly 
protest  against  the  assumption,  that  there  is  no  important  difference  of 
opinion  between  them  and  brethren  against  whom  such  charges  are  pre- 
ferred. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts  and  considerations,  we  appeal  to  a  candid 
public,  whether  there  is,  or  is  not,  any  ground  for  the  dissatisfaction  which 
exists  in  relation  to  the  New  Haven  school,  and  whether  we  are  engaged  in 
an  enterprise  for  which  no  justifiable  reason  can  be  assigned. 

While  we  have  felt  it  our  duty  to  speak  thus  plainly  of  the  doctrines  in- 
culcated in  the  New  Haven  school,  we  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood, 
that  we  entertain  none  but  the  kindest  feelings  towards  the  Professors,  and 
those  who  accord  with  them  in  their  theological  views.  We  concede  to 
them  the  right,  to  maintain  and  defend  their  own  opinions  :  and  we  ask 
them  to  allow  us  the  privilege,  of  maintaining,  and  inculcating  what  we 
believe  to  be  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  To  say  that  the 
founders  of  this  seminary,  "had  a  right  to  form,  and  publicly  to  avow 

*See  an  article  in  the  Eclectic  Review,  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  John  Pye  Smith. 

t  All  these  quotations,  and  much  more  of  a  similar  character,  will  be  found  in  the 
Review  of  Dr.  Tyler's  Remarks  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  for  September  1832, 
and  in  Dr.  Taylor's  communications  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims.  It  should  be  re- 
membered, that  none  of  these  charges,  nor  any  of  the  statements  of  the  Professors, 
which  have  produced  so  much  dissatisfaction  in  the  public  mind,  have  ever  yet  been 
retracted. 


their  own  religious  principles  ;  to  say,  that  they  had  a  right  to  consecrate 
a  portion  of  their  property,  to  the  defence  and  diffusion  of  these  principles, 
and  to  guard  the  sacred  deposite  against  perversion  as  they  have  done  in 
their  statutes,  is  only  to. claim  in  their  behalf,  a  participation  in  the  privi- 
leges common  to  every  Protestant,  and  to  every  citizen  of  a  free 
country." 

We  utterly  disclaim  every  thing  like  hostility  to  Yale  College.  That 
venerable  Institution,  is,  and  ever  will  be,  dear  to  our  hearts ;  and  while 
we  deeply  lament  the  existence  of  evils  which  seem  to  us  to  threaten  its 
best  interests,  we  shall  not  cease  to  pray,  that  its  usefulness  may  be  perpet- 
uated, and  greatly  enhanced. 

We  disclaim  all  intention  to  render  the  seminary  under  our  care,  a  par- 
ty institution.  We  have  no  peculiar  views  to  inculcate,  no  party  purposes 
to  subserve.  We  mean  not  to  assume  a  belligerent  attitude,  or  to  array 
ourselves  against  any  other  institution.  While  we  maintain  what  we  be- 
lieve to  be  the  truth,  our  intention  is,  so  far  as  in  us  lies,  to  live  peaceably 
with  all  men.  In  proof  of  our  pacific  intentions,  we  appeal  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  very  men,  who  have  arraigned  us  before  the  public.  The 
Professors  say :  "  Had  the  articles  of  the  New  Seminary  been  framed 
expressly  as  articles  of  peace  and  concord,  designed  to  exclude  as  ones* 
sential,  all  the  points  which  have  been  so  long  in  controversy,  they  could 
hardly  have  taken  a  better  form  for  the  attainment  of  so  desirable  an 
end." 

By  this  declaration,  they  "  are  forever  precluded  from  saying  or  insin- 
uating," that  the  new  Seminary  is  intended  to  be  a  party  institution. 
If  they  can  ex-animo,  and  without  qualification,  or  reservation,  subscribe 
these  articles  ;  and  if  they  intend  to  teach  nothing  inconsistent  with  them, 
we  sincerely  rejoice  in  the  fact.  But  that  they  can  subscribe  them  consis- 
tently, in  the  sense  in  which  we  receive  them,  and  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  language  has  heretofore  been  generally  understood,  we  shall  find  it 
impossible  to  believe,  till  they  have  retracted  some  of  their  published  state- 
ments, or  explained  them  in  a  manner  more  satisfactory,  than  they  have 
hitherto  done. 

But  while  we  frankly  acknowledge,  that  the  facts  which  we  have  sta- 
ted, are  among  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  the  Theo- 
logical Institute  ;  we  wish  the  public  to  understand,  that  there  are  other 
considerations  by  which  we  are  influenced  in  the  prosecution  of  our  en- 
terprize. 

The  growing  demand  for  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  the  rapid  increase 
of  theological  students,  occasioned  by  the  efforts  of  education  societies, 
and  by  frequent  revivals  of  religion,  seem  to  us  to  call  for  an  increased 
number  of  Theological  Institutions. 

We  believe  also,  that  as  there  is  a  liability  in  such  institutions  to  become 
corrupt  in  doctrine,  their  number  ought  to  be  bo  increased,  that  they  shall 
operate  as  a  check  upon  each  other,  and  that  no  one  shall  become 
overgrown.  If  there  were  but  one  such  seminary  in  New  England,  and 
if.  with  its  large  endowments,  and  extended  patronage,  it  should  become 
the  seat  of  heresy,  who  can  estimate  the  evils  of  which  it  would  be  in- 
strumental >     And  here  we  cai t  but  advert  to  the  fact,  that  the  history 

of  all  past  agea  admonishes  us,  that  large  and  overgrown  institutions  are 
peculiarly  liable  to  corruption.  By  increasing  the  Dumber,  we  diminish 
the  dangers  arising  from  this  source,  and  throw  around  the  churches,  ad- 
ditional safe-guards  against  the  inroads  of  destructive  error. 

There  is  still  another  consideration  which  has  had  no  small  weight  in 
our  minds.     Until  recently,  the  subject  of  physical  education  has  received 


8 

but  little  attention  ;  but  its  importance  is  beginning  now  to  be  deeply  and 
extensively  felt.  Facts  have  been  disclosed,  which  go  to  show,  that  the 
destruction  of  life  and  health,  in  our  literary  and  theological  Seminaries, 
occasioned  by  the  neglect  of  systematic  bodily  exercise,  is  truly  appalling. 

It  appears  from  the  testimony  of  a  large  number  of  the  most  respecta- 
ble teachers  in  our  own  country,  that  "  of  those  who  deserve  the  charac-  s 
ter  of  close  students,  full  one  half,  if  not  more,  injure  themselves  by  an 
injudicious  neglect  of  exercise  ;  and  that  of  these,  full  one  fourth,  if  not  a 
third,  lay  a  foundation  for  feebleness  and  disease  which  go  with  them 
through  life,  and  greatly  diminish  both  their  usefulness  and  enjoyment." 
This  evil  surely  calls  for  a  remedy  ;  and  we  know  of  no  remedy  which 
promises  to  be  more  successful  than  that  provided  by  manual  labor  insti- 
tutions. Such  is  the  institution  under  our  care  ;  and  if  the  plan  shall 
succeed  according  to  our  wishes,  it  will  possess  the  two  fold  advantage,  of 
contributing  to  preserve  the  lives  and  health  of  the  students,  and  of  ena- 
bling them  at  the  same  time,  to  defray,  in  part,  at  least,  the  expenses  of 
their  education.     Is  not  this  part  of  the  plan,  worthy  of  encouragement  1 

We  would  add  in  conclusion,  that  the  enterprize  in  which  we  are  embark- 
ed was  not  undertaken  without  much  deliberation,  and  earnest  prayer  to 
Almighty  God.  The  convention  which  met  in  East  Windsor,  September 
10,  1833,  and  which  resolved  on  the  establishment  of  this  Seminary,  spent 
two  days  in  prayerful  consultation.  It  was  a  season  of  peculiar  interest. 
Deeply  impressed  with  a  sense  of  the  responsibility  under  which  they 
were  acting,  they  looked  to  the  great  Head  of  the  church  for  direction  : 
and  unless  they  were  greatly  deceived,  they  enjoyed  special  tokens  of  his 
presence.  Nothing  like  party  feelings,  seemed  to  characterize  their  de- 
liberations. The  great  and  all.absorbing  inquiry,  was,  what  do  the  honor 
of  God,  and  the  interests  of  his  kingdom  demand  ?  They  were  unanimous 
in  their  result.  Fully  satisfied  that  they  had  discovered  the  path  of  duty, 
they  resolved  to  go  forward  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord.  Hitherto  he 
has  seemed  to  smile  on  the  enterprize,  even  beyond  our  most  sanguine  ex- 
pectations. Friends  have  appeared  both  in,  and  out  of  the  State,  who 
have  aided  us  by  liberal  donations.  A  commodious  building  has  been 
erected,  and  is  now  prepared  for  the  accommodation  of  students.  An  ex- 
cellent farm  has  heen  purchased,  and  a  workshop  will  soon  be  completed. 
A  respectable  library  has  been  collected.  Teachers  have  been  provided, 
who  are  on  the  ground,  and  ready  to  enter  upon  their  labors.  A  respect- 
able  number  of  students  have  already  expressed  a  desire  to  enjoy  the 
benefits  of  the  Institution.  In  view  of  these  tokens  of  the  divine  favor, 
we  would  desire  to  be  humble,  and  unfeignedly  thankful.  But  our  Seminary 
is  still  in  its  infancy  ;  and  a  much  greater  amount  of  funds,  than  has  yet 
been  received,  Mill  be  needed  to  carry  into  full  execution  the  plans  which  we 
contemplate.  We  cannot  doubt,  however,  that  He  to  whom  the  silver  and 
the  gold  belong,  and  who  has  the  hearts  of  all  men  in  his  hands,  will  raise 
up  patrons  and  benefactors.  To  him  we  still  commit  our  cause,  sensible, 
that  except,  the  Lord  build  the  house,  they  labor  in  vain  that  build  it ;  feeling 
assured,  also,  that  it  He  shall  smile  upon  our  enterprize,  it  cannot  be 
overthrown  ;  and  being  willing,  if  our  hearts  deceive  us  not,  that  if  it 
does  not  meet  with  Mis  approbation,  it  should  come  to  nought. 

East  Windsor,  October  14th,  1834. 


Princeton  Theolog 


cat  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1012  01082  0258 


....... 

DATE  DUE 

j 

M^P^S^I 

u 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

